NOTAM

[C J Campbell]

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
> --
>
> I wonder how many modelers even know that NOTAMS even exist?
>

What are they going to do: take your model airplane license away?

[Ash Wyllie]

I saw this in another forum.

--
>The FAA released a Flight Advisory Thursday regarding the Republican National
>Convention (RNC) scheduled for August 30-September 3 in New York City. The
>designated National Special Security Event will prompt three Temporary Flight
>Restriction (TFR) areas including a 7 nautical mile radius (NMR) around
>LaGuardia Airport (LGA); the New York Class B Airspace 20 nm boundary from
>(LGA), Kennedy (JFK) and Newark (EWR) airports; and the Morristown, New
>Jersey Airport (MMU) ingress/egress procedures area. The 7 NMR TFR is up to
>but not including FL180, excluding a 2-NMR of Teterboro at and below 2000
>feet MSL. Only VFR/IFR arrivals and departures will be permitted at
>Teterboro. Other aircraft operations approved by the United States Secret
>Service (USSS) will be permitted. An official Notice to Airmen was issued
>late Thursday on restrictions, dates/times, etc. Added to the NOTAM was
>prohibition of "model aircraft operations, model rocketry, remotely operated
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles." EAA advises pilots to check the latest
^^^^^^^^
>NOTAMs before taking off on any flight. EAA advises pilots to check the
>latest NOTAMs before taking off on any flight.
--

I wonder how many modelers even know that NOTAMS even exist?

-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[DanH]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> "Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
> ...
> > --
> >
> > I wonder how many modelers even know that NOTAMS even exist?
> >
>
> What are they going to do: take your model airplane license away?

I don't know, but does the FAA even have jurisdiction over model
airplanes and rockets? It seems you would have to get a city ordinance
or something like that to keep these from flying.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"DanH" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't know, but does the FAA even have jurisdiction over model
> airplanes and rockets?
>

They have jurisdiction over higher-end rocketry, as I recall none over model
airplanes.

[Casey Wilson]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
> ...
> > --
> >
> > I wonder how many modelers even know that NOTAMS even exist?
> >
>
> What are they going to do: take your model airplane license away?
>

Wait! Don't they have to first intercept the intruding aircraft with a
pair of F-16s and escort the culprit to the nearest airport? With one ship
flying formation off the wing? And use hand signals if you don't answer
their radio calls on 121.5?
This is too good. How many Estes-E motors would you have to strap
together to lift a rocket carrying 4 ounces of C-4?

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On 27 Aug 2004 11:6:54 -0500, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:

>> ... Added to the NOTAM was
>>prohibition of "model aircraft operations, model rocketry, remotely operated
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles." EAA advises pilots to check the latest
> ^^^^^^^^
>>NOTAMs before taking off on any flight. EAA advises pilots to check the
>>latest NOTAMs before taking off on any flight.

>I wonder how many modelers even know that NOTAMS even exist?

The word is not part of our ordinary lingo.

According to google, the word "NOTAM" appears in rec.models.rc.air
only nine times--but the most recent was from yesterday and gives
the text verbatim as you did.

Marty

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:49:12 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...

>> I wonder how many modelers even know that NOTAMS even exist?

>What are they going to do: take your model airplane license away?

They could close a lot of our flying fields, I imagine.

Marty

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:36:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>"DanH" > wrote in message
...

>> I don't know, but does the FAA even have jurisdiction over model
>> airplanes and rockets?

>They have jurisdiction over higher-end rocketry, as I recall none over model
>airplanes.

The President of the Academy of Model Aeronautics recently visited
the FAA in Washington, D.C.:

"The meeting was to discuss the issue of FAA's future regulation of
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)—formerly referred to as Remotely
Piloted Vehicles (RPVs)—and its impact on model aviation. One of the
first things I learned was that there is a new designation for these
vehicles, the importance of which was not lost on me. The new
abbreviation and term are UA—Unmanned Aircraft.

"The reason for this change, or at least the effect of it, became
obvious later in the meeting. This change makes it very clear that the
FAA has jurisdiction over UAs and that they can be subjected to
certification and licensing requirements, just as with any other
aircraft.

"This may not seem significant, but it could become so. The FAA
doesn't give the impression that it wants to regulate model airplanes,
but it does have responsibility for all of the navigable airspace in
the United States, and we fly in that airspace. The people in the FAA
seem to want to ensure we integrate into that airspace without
creating a safety problem for its other users."

<http://www.modelaircraft.org/mag/0804/president.htm>

Seems to me I've also seen some alititude restrictions imposed
on RC models flying near full-scale airfields. I think that at my
field (Reservoir Park, Lewiston, NY), we're technically
not supposed to go above 500 feet. Some of the larger
models (~40% scale) apparently can be seen on the radar
screens at Niagara Falls (IAG).

Marty

[Peter Duniho]

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
> I wonder how many modelers even know that NOTAMS even exist?

That's a good question. If you recall the recent conversation about the TFR
that existed while Bush was here in Seattle a couple of weeks ago, he was
staying not even a mile from one of the most popular RC airfields around
here, and just a few miles from a second one.

There's a possibility they actually closed the closest; certainly I'd be
curious to learn whether they did or not. I think it's a pretty good bet it
didn't even occur to anyone to shut down the next closest one.

Of course, RC flyers exercise their rights at other than official airfields
too. I doubt there was any enforcement of those folks.

I am, of course, assuming that prohibition similar to that which you quoted
is just standard for any Presidential TFR. I don't know if that's true or
not though. If not, the language in the convention's TFR seems unwarranted
though.

Pete

[David Herman]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
> ...
> > --
> >
> > I wonder how many modelers even know that NOTAMS even exist?
> >
>
> What are they going to do: take your model airplane license away?

Well, they might just shoot you.

If they intercept your killer Skyhawk and you don't land or respond to their
radio calls, wing-wags or flares, that's what I assume they would do to you
or me.


--
David Herman
N6170T 1965 Cessna 150E
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying Forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
...
>
> "This may not seem significant, but it could become so. The FAA
> doesn't give the impression that it wants to regulate model airplanes,
> but it does have responsibility for all of the navigable airspace in
> the United States, and we fly in that airspace.
>

Do you? Are model airplanes generally flown above 500' AGL?

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:32:44 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
...

>> "This may not seem significant, but it could become so. The FAA
>> doesn't give the impression that it wants to regulate model airplanes,
>> but it does have responsibility for all of the navigable airspace in
>> the United States, and we fly in that airspace.

>Do you? Are model airplanes generally flown above 500' AGL?

Depends on the modeler and the model.

I would say that on most flights I get above 500' AGL at least
some of the time.

You might notice that the NOTAM in question assumes that
the FAA can ban model flights altogether, regardless of the
altitude. It may be overreaching, but I don't have the money
to take them to court to prove that it is.

Marty

[David Herman]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
...

> Seems to me I've also seen some alititude restrictions imposed
> on RC models flying near full-scale airfields. I think that at my
> field (Reservoir Park, Lewiston, NY), we're technically
> not supposed to go above 500 feet. Some of the larger
> models (~40% scale) apparently can be seen on the radar
> screens at Niagara Falls (IAG).

Marty,

A dumb question: other than eyeballing and estimating, how exactly does
someone controlling a RC model know its altitude?


--
David Herman
N6170T 1965 Cessna 150E
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying Forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

[Newps]

DanH wrote:


>
>
> I don't know, but does the FAA even have jurisdiction over model
> airplanes and rockets? It seems you would have to get a city ordinance
> or something like that to keep these from flying.

To fly model rockets you have to get a waiver from FSDO to be legal.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> To fly model rockets you have to get a waiver from FSDO to be legal.
>

Even those toy Estes ones?

We have given those to CAP cadets to play with, have we done so illegally?
Should we end the cadet rocketry program?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
...
>
> Depends on the modeler and the model.
>
> I would say that on most flights I get above 500' AGL at least
> some of the time.
>

How do you know it's altitude?


>
> You might notice that the NOTAM in question assumes that
> the FAA can ban model flights altogether, regardless of the
> altitude. It may be overreaching, but I don't have the money
> to take them to court to prove that it is.
>

The US government doesn't have Constitutional authority for most of it's
activities.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> To fly model rockets you have to get a waiver from FSDO to be legal.
>

No you don't, model rockets are not regulated by FAR.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
> >
> > To fly model rockets you have to get a waiver from FSDO to be legal.
> >
>
> Even those toy Estes ones?
>

See FAR 101.1(a)(3) below:


Title 14--Aeronauticsand Space

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SUBCHAPTER F--AIR TRAFFIC AND GENERAL OPERATING RULES

PART 101--MOORED BALLOONS, KITES, UNMANNED ROCKETS AND UNMANNED FREE
BALLOONS

§ 101.1 Applicability.

(a) This part prescribes rules governing the operation in the United
States,
of the following:

(1) Except as provided for in §101.7, any balloon that is moored to the
surface of the earth or an object thereon and that has a diameter of more
than 6 feet or a gas capacity of more than 115 cubic feet.

(2) Except as provided for in §101.7, any kite that weighs more than 5
pounds and is intended to be flown at the end of a rope or cable.

(3) Any unmanned rocket except:

(i) Aerial firework displays; and,

(ii) Model rockets:

(a) Using not more than four ounces of propellant;

(b) Using a slow-burning propellant;

(c) Made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic, containing no
substantial
metal parts and weighing not more than 16 ounces, including the propellant;
and

(d) Operated in a manner that does not create a hazard to persons,
property, or other aircraft.

(4) Except as provided for in §101.7, any unmanned free balloon that-

(i) Carries a payload package that weighs more than four pounds and
has a weight/size ratio of more than three ounces per square inch on any
surface
of the package, determined by dividing the total weight in ounces of the
payload package by the area in square inches of its smallest surface;

(ii) Carries a payload package that weighs more than six pounds;

(iii) Carries a payload, of two or more packages, that weighs more
than 12
pounds; or

(iv) Uses a rope or other device for suspension of the payload that
requires
an impact force of more than 50 pounds to separate the suspended payload
from the balloon.

(b) For the purposes of this part, a gyroglider attached to a vehicle on
the
surface of the earth is considered to be a kite.

[Doc. No. 1580, 28 FR 6721, June 29, 1963, as amended by Amdt. 101-1, 29 FR
46, Jan. 3, 1964; Amdt. 101-3, 35 FR 8213, May 26, 1970]

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> et...
>> >
>> > To fly model rockets you have to get a waiver from FSDO to be legal.
>> >
>>
>> Even those toy Estes ones?
>>
>
> See FAR 101.1(a)(3) below:
>


Ah, looks like we are ok. Thanks.

[Bob Kaplow]

In article >, Newps > writes:
>> I don't know, but does the FAA even have jurisdiction over model
>> airplanes and rockets? It seems you would have to get a city ordinance
>> or something like that to keep these from flying.
>
> To fly model rockets you have to get a waiver from FSDO to be legal.

Incorrect.

To fly MODEL rockets (MR up to 1#), you need do NOTHING. FAR 101.1
completely exempts them from FAA regulation.

To fly LARGE MODEL ROCKETS (LMR 1.0-3.3#) you need to NOTIFY the FAA. FAR
101.22 Again, you are NOT requesting permission.

To fly HIGH POWER ROCKETS (HPR over 3.3#) you need to fill out the same
waiver form used for air shows, in advance (30-45 days) and get the FAA
permission in advance.

Under the current regulations, the FAA does not have the authority to ban
model rocket operations that are exempted under FAR 101.1 or 101.22. We flew
the weekend after 9/11 in spite of many other things being shut down.

Note that the FAA regulations say NOTHING about altitude. It's theoretically
possible for a model exempted under FAR 101.1 to go as high as 7000' AGL.
Yet I've got a model that falls into the HPR category, but only goes up
about 150'. As I've said many times, "It's the government, it doesn't have
to make sense"

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org

Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html

[Ash Wyllie]

Martin X. Moleski, SJ opined

>On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:49:12 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>>"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...

>>> I wonder how many modelers even know that NOTAMS even exist?

>>What are they going to do: take your model airplane license away?

>They could close a lot of our flying fields, I imagine.

I fly in my backyard. So do lots of people, and do they know that they are not
allowed to fly?


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[Ash Wyllie]

Steven P. McNicoll opined

>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "This may not seem significant, but it could become so. The FAA
>> doesn't give the impression that it wants to regulate model airplanes,
>> but it does have responsibility for all of the navigable airspace in
>> the United States, and we fly in that airspace.
>>

>Do you? Are model airplanes generally flown above 500' AGL?

2 meter and larger gliders can easily go over 500'. Control distances are
miles, if you can see it, you can control it.


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[C J Campbell]

"David Herman" > wrote in message
news:1093630607.592832@yasure...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > --
>> >
>> > I wonder how many modelers even know that NOTAMS even exist?
>> >
>>
>> What are they going to do: take your model airplane license away?
>
> Well, they might just shoot you.
>

Redmond, WA (AP) -- Model Airplane Enthusiast Shot by Secret Service

Model airplane enthusiast David Adams was shot and killed by Secret Service
agents today as hundreds of young soccer players and their parents looked on
in horror. The Marymoor model airplane field was supposed to be closed
during Presidential candidate John Kerry's visit to Microsoft, but no
notices were posted. Agents claimed that they had attempted to shout
warnings to Adams, who had lost his hearing when a hand grenade exploded
near him while he was stationed with the Marines in Afghanistan. Agents for
the Secret Service accused Adams of being a potential terrorist who might
use his model plane in an attack.

The FAA had issued notices to pilots that there was to be no model airplane
activity at the park, but local RC modelers claimed that they had never
received them. Adams is survived by his wife and two small children. The
Kerry campaign expressed regret at the incident and claimed that critics of
the shooting had links to the Bush campaign. Kerry himself noted that Adams
was a contributor to the Bush campaign.

------------------------------------------

Nope. Don't see it happening. Presidential candidates have just too tough a
time getting elected if their bodyguards go around shooting people at
random.

[David Herman]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Herman" > wrote in message
> news:1093630607.592832@yasure...
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > I wonder how many modelers even know that NOTAMS even exist?
> >> >
> >>
> >> What are they going to do: take your model airplane license away?
> >
> > Well, they might just shoot you.
> >
>
> Redmond, WA (AP) -- Model Airplane Enthusiast Shot by Secret Service
>
> Model airplane enthusiast David Adams was shot and killed by Secret
Service
> agents today as hundreds of young soccer players and their parents looked
on
> in horror. The Marymoor model airplane field was supposed to be closed
> during Presidential candidate John Kerry's visit to Microsoft, but no
> notices were posted. Agents claimed that they had attempted to shout
> warnings to Adams, who had lost his hearing when a hand grenade exploded
> near him while he was stationed with the Marines in Afghanistan. Agents
for
> the Secret Service accused Adams of being a potential terrorist who might
> use his model plane in an attack.
>
> The FAA had issued notices to pilots that there was to be no model
airplane
> activity at the park, but local RC modelers claimed that they had never
> received them. Adams is survived by his wife and two small children. The
> Kerry campaign expressed regret at the incident and claimed that critics
of
> the shooting had links to the Bush campaign. Kerry himself noted that
Adams
> was a contributor to the Bush campaign.
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Nope. Don't see it happening. Presidential candidates have just too tough
a
> time getting elected if their bodyguards go around shooting people at
> random.

The scenario certainly sounds absurd. But it's no more absurd than having
F-16s shoot down some geezer in his Aeronca who fails to check for NOTAMs
and stumbles into some rolling string of pop-up TFRs over a Bush-Cheney
campaign bus trip. I think it's not too far fetched to expect that if the
current insanity continues, it may just be a matter of time before something
like that actually does occur. Frankly I think we've been lucky that some
tragedy like this hasn't happened yet (we came REAL close with the Governor
of Kentucky).

Of course in your scenario you've got things turned around with regard to
the incumbent./challenger: the TFRs - and, presumably, the TRRs (Temporary
Rocketry Restrictions) - go up around Bush & Cheney, not Kerry or Edwards
(at least not yet....knock on wood).

They'll take away my Estes Big Bertha when they pry it out of my cold, dead
fingers.....


--
David Herman
N6170T 1965 Cessna 150E
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying Forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:05:03 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
...

>> Depends on the modeler and the model.

>> I would say that on most flights I get above 500' AGL at least
>> some of the time.

>How do you know its altitude?

I do a little trigonometry based on the crick in my neck and
an estimate of the distance the plane is from me by how
small it looks. :o)

Here's some of my aerial photography. I'm pretty sure I got
well over 500' for some of the photos:
<http://moleski.net/rc/respark.htm>

>> You might notice that the NOTAM in question assumes that
>> the FAA can ban model flights altogether, regardless of the
>> altitude. It may be overreaching, but I don't have the money
>> to take them to court to prove that it is.

>The US government doesn't have Constitutional authority for most of its
>activities.

If the FAA tells me not to fly, I'm gonna not fly. I understand
that others made of sterner stuff might wanna see whether
the courts will back them in their interpretation of civil
liberties.

Marty

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:24:19 -0700, "David Herman"
> wrote:

>A dumb question: other than eyeballing and estimating, how exactly does
>someone controlling a RC model know its altitude?

Maynard Hill used radar, I believe, to verify his altitude record:

Sub-class F3A (Airplane, piston motor)

N°143:

Gain in altitude : 8205 m=26,919 feet

Date of flight: 06/09/1970
Pilot: Maynard L. HILL (USA)
Course/place: Dahlgren, VA (USA)

Folks have been denied permission to attempt to break his
record in the U.S.:

<http://www.noskylimit.50megs.com/>

It was crazy of them to try to do in in Jacksonville. The letter
of denial says that they should try out west. They don't seem
to understand that friendly advice.

Some folks use watches that have peak altitude altimeters
built in. I haven't tried that yet. I've gone high enough to scare
myself a few times. I'm sure others with better eyesight have
gone higher than I have.

Marty

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On 27 Aug 2004 17:46:58 -0500, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:

> ...I fly in my backyard. So do lots of people, and do they know that they are not
>allowed to fly?

I doubt there are many backyards like that in the NYC area. :o)

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" (that I know of). Folks in the
Academy of Model Aeronautics are doing what they can to get
the word out, but lots of RC pilots are not AMA members.
There is no obligation to be a member in order to fly on private
property or wherever permission is granted by the owner(s).

Marty

[Ash Wyllie]

C J Campbell opined

>"David Herman" > wrote in message
>news:1093630607.592832@yasure...
>> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > I wonder how many modelers even know that NOTAMS even exist?
>>> >
>>>
>>> What are they going to do: take your model airplane license away?
>>
>> Well, they might just shoot you.
>>

>Redmond, WA (AP) -- Model Airplane Enthusiast Shot by Secret Service

>Model airplane enthusiast David Adams was shot and killed by Secret Service
>agents today as hundreds of young soccer players and their parents looked on
>in horror. The Marymoor model airplane field was supposed to be closed
>during Presidential candidate John Kerry's visit to Microsoft, but no
>notices were posted. Agents claimed that they had attempted to shout
>warnings to Adams, who had lost his hearing when a hand grenade exploded
>near him while he was stationed with the Marines in Afghanistan. Agents for
>the Secret Service accused Adams of being a potential terrorist who might
>use his model plane in an attack.

>The FAA had issued notices to pilots that there was to be no model airplane
>activity at the park, but local RC modelers claimed that they had never
>received them. Adams is survived by his wife and two small children. The
>Kerry campaign expressed regret at the incident and claimed that critics of
>the shooting had links to the Bush campaign. Kerry himself noted that Adams
>was a contributor to the Bush campaign.

>------------------------------------------

>Nope. Don't see it happening. Presidential candidates have just too tough a
>time getting elected if their bodyguards go around shooting people at
>random.

It's going to be a close election. If the SS shoots enough of the right people
the outcaom could be changed.



-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ash Wyllie wrote:
>
> I saw this in another forum.
>
> >prohibition of "model aircraft operations, model rocketry, remotely operated
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles." EAA advises pilots to check the latest
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> I wonder how many modelers even know that NOTAMS even exist?

I wonder if some of the HSA people saw posts similar to the model B-52 posts that
were going around in this group recently and took some of the humorous comments
seriously.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote:
>
> They could close a lot of our flying fields, I imagine.

I used to fly from a baseball diamond. They're gonna close that?

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Morgans]

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote

It's going to be a close election. If the SS shoots enough of the right
people
> the outcaom could be changed.
>
>
>
> -ash
> Cthulhu for President!
> Why vote for a lesser evil?
>
Starting with you? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Kaplow]

In article >, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > writes:
> "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" (that I know of). Folks in the
> Academy of Model Aeronautics are doing what they can to get
> the word out, but lots of RC pilots are not AMA members.
> There is no obligation to be a member in order to fly on private
> property or wherever permission is granted by the owner(s).

.... or to fly on PUBLIC property regardless of what the AMA thinks...

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org

Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" (that I know of).
>

But if you're arrested and are ignorant of your right to remain silent, and
the cops fail to make you aware of that right, you walk.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On 28 Aug 2004 07:20:17 -0500, (Bob
Kaplow) wrote:

>In article >, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > writes:
>> "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" (that I know of). Folks in the
>> Academy of Model Aeronautics are doing what they can to get
>> the word out, but lots of RC pilots are not AMA members.
>> There is no obligation to be a member in order to fly on private
>> property or wherever permission is granted by the owner(s).

>... or to fly on PUBLIC property regardless of what the AMA thinks...

Agreed. It all depends on what permission the managers of the
public property are willing to grant.

It seems to me that flying is not a right; it is a privilege and a
joy.

Marty

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 03:25:39 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>I used to fly from a baseball diamond. They're gonna close that?

It depends on what you're flying and how much the local
enforcers want to crack down.

When I picture a confrontation between me and the cops,
I picture myself doing whatever they tell me to do, all things
being equal. I understand that other people are made of
sterner stuff and enjoy fighting with armed officers more
than I do. :o(

Marty

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 03:18:20 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>I wonder if some of the HSA people saw posts similar to the model B-52 posts that
>were going around in this group recently and took some of the humorous comments
>seriously.

I hope that someone is thinking about what can be done with RPVs.

I know that the Academy of Model Aeronautics is worried about them.

I hope that some resolution can be reached that will allow the
innocent to continue enjoying a great hobby while the guilty are
detected and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

One non-religious Muslim in our group has already been visited
by the FBI. It was a cordial visit spurred by Erol's purchase of
two quarts of hydrochloric acid from an auto store (if I remember
correctly). They were on his doorstep later that day. He was
using the acid to anodize some aluminum parts. He answered
the door wearing a T-shirt with some nuclear symbols on it
from his day job at a nuclear research center. I imagine it was
a little tense at first, but he's laughing about it now.

Marty

[Bill Denton]

Tangential correction...

You probably will not walk, but whatever you say without benefit of council
will probably not be admissible at your trial.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" (that I know of).
> >
>
> But if you're arrested and are ignorant of your right to remain silent,
and
> the cops fail to make you aware of that right, you walk.
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bill Denton wrote:
>
> You probably will not walk, but whatever you say without benefit of council
> will probably not be admissible at your trial.

Even if you do walk, you will be a much poorer individual. A competent attorney will
charge a contingency fee of several thousand just to handle a felony charge. If it
gets before a jury, you'll be into the tens of thousands.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
...
>
> It seems to me that flying is not a right; it is a privilege and a
> joy.
>

Actually, flying IS a right. In the US, our rights are not granted by our
government, we simply have them. Our government recognizes that our rights
are endowed by our creator, that they are unalienable rights. Our country
was founded on that notion, I refer you to this little nugget from the
Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Here's another little nugget, this one is from the Federal Aviation Act of
1958:

PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT

Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and declared to
exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of
freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United States.

Source: Sec. 3, Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938.

Note that Sec. 104 does not grant the right to fly, it simply recognizes
that it exists. None of our rights are granted by the government, we simply
have them. Now, there are certainly rules to be followed, but those rules
don't take away from your rights, they protect the rights of others.

You have a right to fly, it is not a privilege. If you meet all the
requirements, you cannot be denied an airman's certificate, you have a right
to it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> Tangential correction...
>
> You probably will not walk, but whatever you say without benefit
> of council will probably not be admissible at your trial.
>

Correction...

Counsel.

[Tom S.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It seems to me that flying is not a right; it is a privilege and a
> > joy.
> >
>
> Actually, flying IS a right. In the US, our rights are not granted by our
> government, we simply have them.

Actually, you're both wrong...sorta.

What you have is the natural right to travel/move about freely in public.
HOW you move about, though, is subject to limitations. Same with driving.
Same with guns: you have the right to a proper self-defense and
self-protection, but not necessarily a right to own/carry GUNS.

Travel/freedom of movement is PRIMARY; the right to FLY is derivative.


--
"A mind, like a home, is furnished by its owner,
so if one's life is cold and bare he can blame
none but himself." -- Louis L'Amour

[Bill Denton]

You might want to rethink your "guns" theory...

From the Second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed"

From www.dictionary.com: arms - "A weapon, especially a firearm" and: gun -
"A portable firearm, such as a rifle or revolver".

A gun is a firearm, a firearm is an arm. The Second doesn't refer to SOME
arms and by not specifically delineating what arms may be owned or
possessed, the right is extended to ALL arms.

So, in fact, we do have a Constitutional right to "own/carry GUNS".






"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > It seems to me that flying is not a right; it is a privilege and a
> > > joy.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, flying IS a right. In the US, our rights are not granted by
our
> > government, we simply have them.
>
> Actually, you're both wrong...sorta.
>
> What you have is the natural right to travel/move about freely in public.
> HOW you move about, though, is subject to limitations. Same with driving.
> Same with guns: you have the right to a proper self-defense and
> self-protection, but not necessarily a right to own/carry GUNS.
>
> Travel/freedom of movement is PRIMARY; the right to FLY is derivative.
>
>
> --
> "A mind, like a home, is furnished by its owner,
> so if one's life is cold and bare he can blame
> none but himself." -- Louis L'Amour
>
>

[john smith]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>Depends on the modeler and the model.
>>I would say that on most flights I get above 500' AGL at least
>>some of the time.

> How do you know it's altitude?

>>You might notice that the NOTAM in question assumes that
>>the FAA can ban model flights altogether, regardless of the
>>altitude. It may be overreaching, but I don't have the money
>>to take them to court to prove that it is.

> The US government doesn't have Constitutional authority for most of it's
> activities.

14 CFR 101

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> 14 CFR 101
>

What about it?

[Bob Kaplow]

In article >, "Bill Denton" > writes:
> You might want to rethink your "guns" theory...
>
> From the Second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
> shall not be infringed"
>
> From www.dictionary.com: arms - "A weapon, especially a firearm" and: gun -
> "A portable firearm, such as a rifle or revolver".
>
> A gun is a firearm, a firearm is an arm. The Second doesn't refer to SOME
> arms and by not specifically delineating what arms may be owned or
> possessed, the right is extended to ALL arms.
>
> So, in fact, we do have a Constitutional right to "own/carry GUNS".

Actually, we should have more than that. When the Bill of Rights was
written, we had the right to own the most powerful weapons on the planet.
Right now, I'll settle for a fully armed F15 :-)

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org

Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html

[Big John]

Marty

When it's a wee widdle thing, you know 'tis a way out there.

Big John
Expert R/C Pilot
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````````````

MaartyOn Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:24:19 -0700, "David Herman"
> wrote:

>
>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Seems to me I've also seen some alititude restrictions imposed
>> on RC models flying near full-scale airfields. I think that at my
>> field (Reservoir Park, Lewiston, NY), we're technically
>> not supposed to go above 500 feet. Some of the larger
>> models (~40% scale) apparently can be seen on the radar
>> screens at Niagara Falls (IAG).
>
>Marty,
>
>A dumb question: other than eyeballing and estimating, how exactly does
>someone controlling a RC model know its altitude?

[Big John]

David

We bought and own our flying field. What will they do, put a lien on
it?

Big John

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:10:13 -0700, "David Herman"
> wrote:

>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > --
>> >
>> > I wonder how many modelers even know that NOTAMS even exist?
>> >
>>
>> What are they going to do: take your model airplane license away?
>
>Well, they might just shoot you.
>
>If they intercept your killer Skyhawk and you don't land or respond to their
>radio calls, wing-wags or flares, that's what I assume they would do to you
>or me.

[Big John]

C.J.

Hoax, Hoax, Hoax

Just called long distance and talked to secretary of Marynoll R.C
Club. As of yesterday (Labor day) nothing like posted has happened.

Some people seems to have more time to waste than smarts. Guess they
like to cry wolf.

Big John


On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:45:09 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"David Herman" > wrote in message
>news:1093630607.592832@yasure...
>> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > I wonder how many modelers even know that NOTAMS even exist?
>>> >
>>>
>>> What are they going to do: take your model airplane license away?
>>
>> Well, they might just shoot you.
>>
>
>Redmond, WA (AP) -- Model Airplane Enthusiast Shot by Secret Service
>
>Model airplane enthusiast David Adams was shot and killed by Secret Service
>agents today as hundreds of young soccer players and their parents looked on
>in horror. The Marymoor model airplane field was supposed to be closed
>during Presidential candidate John Kerry's visit to Microsoft, but no
>notices were posted. Agents claimed that they had attempted to shout
>warnings to Adams, who had lost his hearing when a hand grenade exploded
>near him while he was stationed with the Marines in Afghanistan. Agents for
>the Secret Service accused Adams of being a potential terrorist who might
>use his model plane in an attack.
>
>The FAA had issued notices to pilots that there was to be no model airplane
>activity at the park, but local RC modelers claimed that they had never
>received them. Adams is survived by his wife and two small children. The
>Kerry campaign expressed regret at the incident and claimed that critics of
>the shooting had links to the Bush campaign. Kerry himself noted that Adams
>was a contributor to the Bush campaign.
>
>------------------------------------------
>
>Nope. Don't see it happening. Presidential candidates have just too tough a
>time getting elected if their bodyguards go around shooting people at
>random.
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> C.J.
>
> Hoax, Hoax, Hoax
>
> Just called long distance and talked to secretary of Marynoll R.C
> Club. As of yesterday (Labor day) nothing like posted has happened.

"Marynoll"? What's that?

In any case, pretty much the rest of us were able to figure out that CJ's
post was not intended to be a real Associated Press report. He wrote it
himself, as a parody.


> Some people seems to have more time to waste than smarts.

Indeed.

> Guess they like to cry wolf.

Yeah, like accusing someone of intentionally trying to mislead others, when
they obviously did not?

Pete

[C J Campbell]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> C.J.
>
> Hoax, Hoax, Hoax
>
> Just called long distance and talked to secretary of Marynoll R.C
> Club. As of yesterday (Labor day) nothing like posted has happened.
>

Uh, John? I wrote it myself ... it was meant to be satirical. I thought it
was rather obvious.

Marymoor Park (not Marynoll) is a real park near Microsoft headquarters in
Redmond. It has a model airplane field which has an interesting history. The
runway was originally in another location, but a bald eagle nested in the
vicinity and environmentalists demanded that the runway be closed or moved
(preferably closed). The club moved the runway to its present location and
the eagle promptly moved his nest in order to stay close to the field (if
you know eagles, an eagle moving his nest is a big deal, so he must have
really wanted to stay close to the runway). Club members theorize that the
eagle just likes to watch R.C. airplanes, perhaps because there are a number
of people who fly gliders there. The gliders might make it easy for the
eagle to find thermals. Others think the eagle just wants to keep a close
eye on what he may consider to be potential competitors or even prey, or
maybe he just likes the company.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually, you're both wrong...sorta.
>

Nope.


>
> What you have is the natural right to travel/move about freely in public.
> HOW you move about, though, is subject to limitations. Same with driving.
>

Correct, and as long as you meet the requirements you cannot be denied the
right to fly. Or drive. That's what makes it a right and not a privilege.


>
> Same with guns: you have the right to a proper self-defense and
> self-protection, but not necessarily a right to own/carry GUNS.
>

It appears you're unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights.

[Tom S.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Actually, you're both wrong...sorta.
> >
>
> Nope.
>
>
> >
> > What you have is the natural right to travel/move about freely in
public.
> > HOW you move about, though, is subject to limitations. Same with
driving.
> >
>
> Correct, and as long as you meet the requirements you cannot be denied the
> right to fly. Or drive. That's what makes it a right and not a
privilege.

A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a right.
Recall the line "inalienable rights"...? Do you know what "inalienable"
means?

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Tom S." wrote:
>
> A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a right.
> Recall the line "inalienable rights"...? Do you know what "inalienable"
> means?

But not all rights are inalienable; if they were, Jefferson would not have had to
qualify the word "rights". The U.S. government has stated that piloting a plane is a
right, subject to the requirement that individuals prove to the government that they
can do so safely.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[ShawnD2112]

Actually, he's correct. Flying is a privalege, not a right. The FARs even
use that language. Remember what happened after 9/11? The government took
away everyone's privalege to fly, but took away no one's right to free
speech.

Shawn
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Actually, you're both wrong...sorta.
> >
>
> Nope.
>
>
> >
> > What you have is the natural right to travel/move about freely in
public.
> > HOW you move about, though, is subject to limitations. Same with
driving.
> >
>
> Correct, and as long as you meet the requirements you cannot be denied the
> right to fly. Or drive. That's what makes it a right and not a
privilege.
>
>
> >
> > Same with guns: you have the right to a proper self-defense and
> > self-protection, but not necessarily a right to own/carry GUNS.
> >
>
> It appears you're unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights.
>
>

[Newps]

> "Tom S." > wrote in message

>
>
>>Same with guns: you have the right to a proper self-defense and
>>self-protection, but not necessarily a right to own/carry GUNS.

All, and I mean all, the supporting documents written by the framers
with regard to guns say exactly the opposite.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Newps wrote:
>
> > "Tom S." > wrote in message
>
> >>Same with guns: you have the right to a proper self-defense and
> >>self-protection, but not necessarily a right to own/carry GUNS.
>
> All, and I mean all, the supporting documents written by the framers
> with regard to guns say exactly the opposite.

You are absolutely correct, but it should be mentioned that the framers would not
have mentioned the right to self-defense, since it's an old premise of common law and
the Constitution states that common law is to be the basis for all law in the U.S..
Basically, they would have assumed that the right to self-defense would never be
questioned.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Tom S.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Actually, you're both wrong...sorta.
> >
>
> Nope.
>
>
> >
> > What you have is the natural right to travel/move about freely in
public.
> > HOW you move about, though, is subject to limitations. Same with
driving.
> >
>
> Correct, and as long as you meet the requirements you cannot be denied the
> right to fly. Or drive. That's what makes it a right and not a
privilege.

A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a right.
Recall the line "inalienable rights"...? Do you know what "inalienable"
means?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Correct, and as long as you meet the requirements you cannot be
>> denied the right to fly. Or drive. That's what makes it a right and
>> not a privilege.
>>
>
> A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a right.
>

Wrong. The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example, your
right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.


>
> Recall the line "inalienable rights"...?
>

Very well.


>
> Do you know what "inalienable" means?
>

I sure do.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually, he's correct. Flying is a privalege, not a right.
>

Actually, he's wrong. Review my response to Martin X. Moleski earlier in
this thread to understand why.


>
> The FARs even use that language.
>

Many confuse "right" and "privilege", the fact remains that flying has been
declared to be a right in the US.


>
> Remember what happened after 9/11? The government took
> away everyone's privalege to fly, but took away no one's right to free
> speech.
>

Apparently you're not familiar with the McCain-Feingold act.

[Casey Wilson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Actually, he's correct. Flying is a privalege, not a right.
>>
>
> Actually, he's wrong. Review my response to Martin X. Moleski earlier in
> this thread to understand why.
>
First, in fairness to Mr. McNicoll, I have taken the above statement
out of context. I don't think putting in all the verbage would make a
difference.

In a previous message on this newsgroup, you [Mr. McNicoll] made the
statement:
"A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a right."
The message relating to Mr. Moleski has departed my files so I don't know
what your response was there, but the your text in this message and in the
statement quoted above certainly implies your position is that flying is a
right.

I contend that flying an airplane [excluding ultralights and that ilk]
"requires" a certificate of some sort. In order to exercise the "rights" of
that certificate, aren't we "required" to meet certain capability/skill
standards and "required" to follow rules such as the FARs? Maybe there was
something in the dialog with Mr. Moleski to negate the seemingly obvious
contradiction. :))

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
news:Nmmbd.2794$vJ.1675@trnddc05...
>>>
>>> Actually, he's correct. Flying is a privalege, not a right.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, he's wrong. Review my response to Martin X. Moleski earlier in
>> this thread to understand why.
>>
>
> First, in fairness to Mr. McNicoll, I have taken the above statement
> out of context. I don't think putting in all the verbage would make a
> difference.
>
> In a previous message on this newsgroup, you [Mr. McNicoll] made the
> statement:
> "A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a
> right."
>

No, I did not make that statement in this newsgroup or anywhere else. Tom
S. made that statement.


>
> The message relating to Mr. Moleski has departed my files so I don't know
> what your response was there, but the your text in this message and in the
> statement quoted above certainly implies your position is that flying is a
> right.
>

Here is the text of that message:

Actually, flying IS a right. In the US, our rights are not granted by our
government, we simply have them. Our government recognizes that our rights
are endowed by our creator, that they are unalienable rights. Our country
was founded on that notion, I refer you to this little nugget from the
Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Here's another little nugget, this one is from the Federal Aviation Act of
1958:

PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT

Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and declared to
exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of
freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United States.

Source: Sec. 3, Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938.

Note that Sec. 104 does not grant the right to fly, it simply recognizes
that it exists. None of our rights are granted by the government, we simply
have them. Now, there are certainly rules to be followed, but those rules
don't take away from your rights, they protect the rights of others.

You have a right to fly, it is not a privilege. If you meet all the
requirements, you cannot be denied an airman's certificate, you have a right
to it.


>
> I contend that flying an airplane [excluding ultralights and that ilk]
> "requires" a certificate of some sort. In order to exercise the "rights"
> of that certificate, aren't we "required" to meet certain capability/skill
> standards and "required" to follow rules such as the FARs? Maybe there was
> something in the dialog with Mr. Moleski to negate the seemingly obvious
> contradiction. :))
>

There was.

[OtisWinslow]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Many confuse "right" and "privilege", the fact remains that flying has
> been declared to be a right in the US.
>


We have no "right" to fly. It's a privelege granted by the govt which can
be snatched away at any time.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
>
> We have no "right" to fly. It's a privelege granted by the govt which can
> be snatched away at any time.
>

Where is the granting of privilege found in the Constitution? Flying is a
"right" in the same sense that free speech is a "right".

[Teacherjh]

>>
Actually, flying IS a right. In the US, our rights are not granted by our
government, we simply have them.
<<

So how did driving (a car) become a privelage?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>>>
> Actually, flying IS a right. In the US, our rights are not granted by our
> government, we simply have them.
> <<
>
> So how did driving (a car) become a privelage?
>

It didn't.

[Teacherjh]

>>
> So how did driving (a car) become a privelage?

It didn't.
<<

It is recognized in law as a privelage, not a right. At least in the US. (or
the states with which I am familiar)

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:23:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> We have no "right" to fly. It's a privelege granted by the govt which can
>> be snatched away at any time.
>>
>
>Where is the granting of privilege found in the Constitution? Flying is a
>"right" in the same sense that free speech is a "right".
>

Given the authoritative citation you have provided, I share your
belief. However, Mr. Durden raises some valid points in this message:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=right+privilege++rick+OR+durden+group:rec .aviation.piloting&hl=en&lr=&selm=d9fecbe.0109210341.42b3fe01%40posting.google. com&rnum=2

From: (Rick Durden)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Right vs. privilege
Date: 21 Sep 2001 04:41:59 -0700
Message-ID: >
References: <3baa3f99.552242815@news>

(Ron Rapp) wrote in message
news:<3baa3f99.552242815@news>...

I wish your argument were true, unfortunately, it's not. The issue
has been litigated a number of times. Under the Constitution we have
a right to travel. We do not have a right to a particular modality of
doing so. That is part of the reason why there is no such thing as a
pilot's "license" as to have a license is to have a right, there is
only a pilot's certificate. As a result, we have to fight in the
political arena for our flying privileges as opposed to the courts for
our flying rights. (Although, as with all privileges, the government
still must take certain steps before restricting them...steps I
believe were not taken and which made the entire ground illegal, but
that's another issue.)

Don't forget that the Federalist papers were a propoganda [sic] work
written
by one of the groups that supported ratification of the Constitution,
using its perspective on the document, to encourage the states to
ratify it. Let's just say that some liberties were taken with the
truth in some cases. They wanted the constitution ratified and
sometimes were a little zealous in their pursuit of the goal. It is
not law, some of the arguments in it are valid and have been accepted
at times by the courts in support of certain constitutional issues,
however, a lot of the arguments are pure nonsense, so it has to be
viewed on a case by case basis.

All the best,
Rick
> I sent this to Phil Boyer this morning. Thoughts?
>
> --------------------------------
>
> Phil--
>
> First of all, thanks for all your hard work to get us back in the air.
> We all appreciate your efforts--Lord knows it's going to be months of
> work just to get us back to the level of restriction we had before all
> this stuff blew up.
>
> I think the real thing that has been holding GA back is the perception
> that flying is a "privilege", not a right.
>
> I think it is a right.
>
> The Civil Aviation Act of 1958 and subsequent legislation has turned
> it into a "privilege". But the U.S. Constitution trumps any and all
> laws:
>
> Amendment IX
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
>
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
> prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
> respectively, or to the people.
>
> The Federalist Papers, while not law, also support the idea that
> flying is our right.
>
> In light of recent events, I would suggest it's time to build a
> coalition of our own between AOPA, EAA, NBAA, and other aviation
> organizations for the purposes of challenging this in court.
>
> Once flying is recognized as our God-given right, it will be much
> harder for a large federal government to oppress aviators in this way.
> The onus will be on them to prove the exacting need for each and every
> law or regulation, instead of the current situation where the burden
> is upon us to prove that we are worthy of being granted the limited
> use of whatever scraps of airspace the government deems acceptable.
>
> What do you think?
>
> --Ron
>
> P.S. The legal costs for this would be high, but if there was ever a
> cause that aviators would contribute to, this is it.
--------------------------------------------------


Here's another of Mr. Durden's views on the question:

From: (Rick Durden)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Report to FAA ??
Date: 8 Dec 2002 20:52:08 -0800
Message-ID: >


Under the U.S. Constitution, citizens have a "right" to travel,
however it does not give anyone a "right" to do so via a motor
vehicle which he or she operates. As a result, you hold a pilot
"certificate" not a "license". Every single time that the issue
has been raised, piloting an aircraft has been held to be a
privilege, not a right. This has been discussed in detail on this
forum in the past. If you look at Part 61 of the FARs you will
see sections on the privileges of the various levels of
certificate, but nothing on rights. Should you violate a
regulation, the proceeding to prosecute you for the violation is
entirely civil, not criminal, as you are not going to be
stripped of an essential right and jailed...which also means you
have no right against self-incrimination and you are not given any
sort of warning regarding your "rights" when you are questioned.

Not being where I can provide you citations, nevertheless, you
might look at the Federal Aviation Act and cases interpreting it.
The matter has been litigated and the right versus privilege issue
was resolved many years ago. I suspect that my opinion on the
subject is similar to yours, I don't like the situation, but I'm
stuck with it.

All the best,
Rick

----------------------------------------------------


Here's another authoritative data point:

From: "Rick Cremer" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Arrrgghhh!! FAA strikes again...
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:02:45 -0500
Message-ID: >

[...]
NTSB Hearing Order EA-4232; Docket SE-13136. Here is [sic] the
pertinent parts of that Law Judge's finding:

The FAA is charged with being sure that it fulfills its mission to the
public and that is keeping the airways and aircraft that use these
airways safe. Flying is a privilege, it is not a right and all
airmen are charged with discharging their duties in a highly
conscientious, responsible and prudent manner and at all times.
[...]

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> > Actually, flying IS a right. In the US, our rights are not granted by our
> > government, we simply have them.
> > <<
> >
> > So how did driving (a car) become a privelage?
>
> It didn't.

Driving a car on private property is not considered a privilege. Driving on the
public roads is, however, considered a privilege in New Jersey, Tennessee, and
Georgia. I don't know about other States, but I'd bet there are a lot more who have
similar laws on the matter. Basically, it's considered a priviledge because the roads
are owned and maintained by the State and local governments.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Teacherjh]

>>
Basically, [driving a car] considered a priviledge because the roads
are owned and maintained by the State and local governments.
<<

.... and who owns the airspace?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Casey Wilson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
> news:Nmmbd.2794$vJ.1675@trnddc05...
>>>>
>>>> Actually, he's correct. Flying is a privalege, not a right.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, he's wrong. Review my response to Martin X. Moleski earlier
>>> in this thread to understand why.
>>>
>>
>> First, in fairness to Mr. McNicoll, I have taken the above statement
>> out of context. I don't think putting in all the verbage would make a
>> difference.
>>
>> In a previous message on this newsgroup, you [Mr. McNicoll] made the
>> statement:
>> "A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a
>> right."
>>
>
> No, I did not make that statement in this newsgroup or anywhere else. Tom
> S. made that statement.
>
I apologize. When a message has multiple responses caged together
I sometimes lose track of who said what.

[Matt Barrow]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Actually, he's correct. Flying is a privalege, not a right.
> >
>
> Actually, he's wrong. Review my response to Martin X. Moleski earlier in
> this thread to understand why.
>
>
> >
> > The FARs even use that language.
> >
>
> Many confuse "right" and "privilege", the fact remains that flying has
been
> declared to be a right in the US.

By whom? If it's a right, why do we need a license?

> > Remember what happened after 9/11? The government took
> > away everyone's privalege to fly, but took away no one's right to free
> > speech.
> >
>
> Apparently you're not familiar with the McCain-Feingold act.

Non-sequitur.

[Matt Barrow]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
> news:Nmmbd.2794$vJ.1675@trnddc05...
> >>>
> >>> Actually, he's correct. Flying is a privalege, not a right.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Actually, he's wrong. Review my response to Martin X. Moleski earlier
in
> >> this thread to understand why.
> >>
> >
> > First, in fairness to Mr. McNicoll, I have taken the above statement
> > out of context. I don't think putting in all the verbage would make a
> > difference.
> >
> > In a previous message on this newsgroup, you [Mr. McNicoll] made the
> > statement:
> > "A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a
> > right."
> >
>
> No, I did not make that statement in this newsgroup or anywhere else. Tom
> S. made that statement.

And it's correct.

>
>
> >
> > The message relating to Mr. Moleski has departed my files so I don't
know
> > what your response was there, but the your text in this message and in
the
> > statement quoted above certainly implies your position is that flying is
a
> > right.
> >
>
> Here is the text of that message:
>
> Actually, flying IS a right. In the US, our rights are not granted by our
> government, we simply have them. Our government recognizes that our
rights
> are endowed by our creator, that they are unalienable rights. Our country
> was founded on that notion, I refer you to this little nugget from the
> Declaration of Independence:
> PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT


No, butthead! TRANSIT is a right. Riding on an airliner is not a right (you
don't pay a "fare" for a RIGHT.

>
> Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and declared
to
> exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of
> freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United States.
>
> Source: Sec. 3, Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938.
>
> Note that Sec. 104 does not grant the right to fly, it simply recognizes
> that it exists.

Steve. stick to ATC rules, okay. Beyond that you're clueless.


> None of our rights are granted by the government, we simply
> have them. Now, there are certainly rules to be followed, but those rules
> don't take away from your rights, they protect the rights of others.
>
> You have a right to fly, it is not a privilege. If you meet all the
> requirements, you cannot be denied an airman's certificate, you have a
right
> to it.

Geezz..what a dope!!

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>>>
> Basically, [driving a car] considered a priviledge because the roads
> are owned and maintained by the State and local governments.
> <<
>
> ... and who owns the airspace?

IMHO, George should have written "Basically, it's considered a privilege
because the roads are NOT owned by the driver". If you owned your own
airspace, you'd have the free and clear right to fly within that airspace.
But you don't...you share the airspace with everyone else (and the federal
government has effectively taken ownership of it anyway), so the federal
government imposes rules.

It's more about who doesn't own the place where you exercise the "right" or
"privilege" than it is about who does own that place.

Pete

[Bob Moore]

"Matt Barrow" wrote

>> Somebody wrote:
>> Many confuse "right" and "privilege", the fact remains that flying
>> has been declared to be a right in the US.

> By whom? If it's a right, why do we need a license?

Does this help?

TITLE 49 > SUBTITLE VII > PART A > subpart i > CHAPTER 401
§ 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—
(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty
of airspace of the United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a PUBLIC RIGHT of
transit through the navigable airspace.

And......I don't have a "license", my pilot "certificate" is
all that the FAA requires.

Bob Moore

[Roger]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:21:02 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Correct, and as long as you meet the requirements you cannot be
>>> denied the right to fly. Or drive. That's what makes it a right and
>>> not a privilege.
>>>
>>
>> A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a right.
>>
>
>Wrong. The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example, your
>right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.
>
>
>>
>> Recall the line "inalienable rights"...?
>>
>
>Very well.
>
>
>>
>> Do you know what "inalienable" means?
>>
>
>I sure do.
>

Apparently many of our politicians do not.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Roger wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:21:02 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
> >
> >"Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Do you know what "inalienable" means?
> >
> >I sure do.
>
> Apparently many of our politicians do not.

There's no indication that that's the case; however, they probably know (as some
posters in this thread apparently do not) that the phrase "inalienable rights" does
not occur in any U.S. legal document that guarantees those rights to us. It occurs in
the Declaration of Independence, which does not have the force of law. To sum it up,
it's a pretty word, but not pertinent to this discussion.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Ron Natalie]

Roger wrote:

>>Wrong. The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example, your
>>right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.

Nope, it just requires the government not to prohibit you.

You've got the freedom of speech, but it doesn't mean you will be heard.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Roger wrote:
>
>>>Wrong. The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example,
>>>your right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.
>
> Nope, it just requires the government not to prohibit you.
>

The government is the "others" referred to.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Todd Pattist wrote:
>
> The exercise of the right of free speech is subject to
> certain limitations too. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a
> crowded place and you can't tell the FBI lies.

And you can't speak out just anywhere you want to, either. Start preaching to
strangers (or similar activities) at one of the attractions in Great Smokey Mountains
National Park, and you will be directed to one of the "First Amendment Exercise
Zones" that they've set up. Keep preaching outside the zone, you will be evicted from
the park. Come back and do it again, and you'll get arrested.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> There's no indication that that's the case; however, they probably know
> (as some posters in this thread apparently do not) that the phrase
> "inalienable rights" does not occur in any U.S. legal document that
> guarantees
> those rights to us. It occurs in the Declaration of Independence, which
> does
> not have the force of law.
>

It does not occur in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of
Independence uses the phrase "unalienable Rights". Jefferson used
"inalienable rights" in an earlier draft.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> So how did driving (a car) become a privelage?
>>>
>>
>> It didn't.
>>
>
> It is recognized in law as a privelage, not a right. At least in the US.
> (or the states with which I am familiar)
>

You are familiar with states that deny licenses to those that have met all
the qualifications for them? What states are those?

I have held drivers licenses in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois. In all
of those states a license must be issued to qualified applicants, they have
a right to it. A license cannot be arbitrarily denied to qualified
applicants as a privilege can.

[Roger]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:16:16 -0700, "Tom S." > wrote:

>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > It seems to me that flying is not a right; it is a privilege and a
>> > joy.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, flying IS a right. In the US, our rights are not granted by our
>> government, we simply have them.
>
>Actually, you're both wrong...sorta.
>
>What you have is the natural right to travel/move about freely in public.
>HOW you move about, though, is subject to limitations. Same with driving.
>Same with guns: you have the right to a proper self-defense and
>self-protection, but not necessarily a right to own/carry GUNS.

The right of the people shall not be infringed.
It says you "the people" have the right to own firearms and that right
shall not be infringed. Certainly it can be controlled such as where
you carry.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Travel/freedom of movement is PRIMARY; the right to FLY is derivative.

[Teacherjh]

>>
>>> The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example,
>>> your right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.

> Nope, it just requires the government not to prohibit you.

The government is the "others" referred to.
<<

It requires the government not to prohibit you. It does not require property
owners not to prohibit you from excercising your right of free speech contrary
to their property rights.

>>
A license cannot be arbitrarily denied to qualified
applicants as a privilege can.
<<

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect there is a bit more than this to the
difference between a right and a privilege (which I am now spelling correctly
:) And nowadays a pilot certificate =can= be revoked with no recourse, for no
reason the government can be held accountable for.

Any lawyers want to chime in on what the difference in law is between a right
and a privilege?

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:50:40 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote in >::

>
>Driving a car on private property is not considered a privilege. Driving on the
>public roads is, however, considered a privilege in New Jersey, Tennessee, and
>Georgia. I don't know about other States, but I'd bet there are a lot more who have
>similar laws on the matter. Basically, it's considered a priviledge because the roads
>are owned and maintained by the State and local governments.


Dennis O'Connor says the court now views a motorist's privilege to
become a right once the state has issued him a license:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=right+privilege++denny+group:rec.aviation .piloting&hl=en&lr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=2004&selm=uv9gfo4mf2th21%40corp.supernews.com&rnum=2
From: "Dennis O'Connor" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Report to FAA ??
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:16:44 -0500
Message-ID: >

It is time to force the courts to revisit this 'privilege' crap...
And, the FAA appealing it's decisions to itself, etc..
A drivers license used to be a 'privilege'... Court decisions
recognize that it is no longer a privilege in this transportation
dependent society, and for the state to take it away once granted, it
has to show a clear and compelling reason..
Look, 'separate but equal', was settled case law for generations... Is
it still settled case law?
Of course not! The blacks forced the courts to revisit it over and
over by simply being in the courts face every time it turned around,
sitting down at lunch counters, buses, etc., filing suits, i.e. Rosa
Parks... Finally, the courts no longer had the stomach to allow the
government to continue what was clearly a violation of constitutional
guarantees... The homosexuals understood this clearly, even though
nearly every state had laws discriminating against them, and the
supreme court had upheld the cases against those laws... They simply
kept going back at the court until it no longer had the stomach to
continue sanctioning discrimination against a class of person...

It is time for a pilot's class action suit against the government for
discrimination against a class of person... I am willing to spend and
to participate... Where are the rest of you? And yes, we will lose
the first time, or the third time, but each time the court will find
it harder to violate the constitution again....

Denny




"Rick Durden" > wrote in message
...
> Larry,
>
> Under the U.S. Constitution, citizens have a "right" to travel,
> however it does not give anyone a "right" to do so via a motor vehicle
> which he or she operates. As a result, you hold a pilot "certificate"
> not a "license". Every single time that the issue has been raised,
> piloting an aircraft has been held to be a privilege, not a right.
> This has been discussed in detail on this forum in the past. If you
> look at Part 61 of the FARs you will see sections on the privileges of
> the various levels of certificate, but nothing on rights. Should you
> violate a regulation, the proceeding to prosecute you for the
> violation is entirely civil, not criminal, as you are not going to be
> stripped of an essential right and jailed...which also means you have
> no right against self-incrimination and you are not given any sort of
> warning regarding your "rights" when you are questioned.
>
> Not being where I can provide you citations, nevertheless, you might
> look at the Federal Aviation Act and cases interpreting it. The
> matter has been litigated and the right versus privilege issue was
> resolved many years ago. I suspect that my opinion on the subject is
> similar to yours, I don't like the situation, but I'm stuck with it.
>
> All the best,
> Rick
>
> Larry Dighera > wrote in message
>...
> > On 7 Dec 2002 04:54:07 -0800, (Rick Durden)
> > (Rick Durden) wrote in Message ID
> > >:
> >
> > >Actually, it's not his right, it's a privilege he has under our laws.
> >
> > Rick, Can you post a citation supporting that statement?

[Dave Stadt]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> >>> The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example,
> >>> your right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.
>
> > Nope, it just requires the government not to prohibit you.
>
> The government is the "others" referred to.
> <<
>
> It requires the government not to prohibit you. It does not require
property
> owners not to prohibit you from excercising your right of free speech
contrary
> to their property rights.
>
> >>
> A license cannot be arbitrarily denied to qualified
> applicants as a privilege can.
> <<
>
> I am not a lawyer, but I suspect there is a bit more than this to the
> difference between a right and a privilege (which I am now spelling
correctly
> :) And nowadays a pilot certificate =can= be revoked with no recourse,
for no
> reason the government can be held accountable for.

Not a lawyer but the revocation might be determined to be illegal should
someone care to run it up the court system. Many laws are illegal but they
remain in place if they are not challenged in the courts.

> Any lawyers want to chime in on what the difference in law is between a
right
> and a privilege?
>
> Jose
>
>
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[John Galban]

Bob Moore > wrote in message >...
>
> TITLE 49 > SUBTITLE VII > PART A > subpart i > CHAPTER 401
> § 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
> (a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.?
> (1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty
> of airspace of the United States.
> (2) A citizen of the United States has a PUBLIC RIGHT of
> transit through the navigable airspace.
>
> And......I don't have a "license", my pilot "certificate" is
> all that the FAA requires.

Theoretically, that may be correct. Realistically, you really don't
have a right to fly. Remember that the TSA can order your certificate
pulled without having to tell you why, or allowing you due process.

This mass hysteria that has taken over the U.S. (and is fueled by
politicians of every stripe), has resulted in an erosion of all kinds
of freedoms that we used to take for granted. In other words, we
have a lot of freedoms that look good on paper, but no longer exist in
real life.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Matt Barrow]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> > >>
> > >> Do you know what "inalienable" means?
> > >
> > >I sure do.
> >
> > Apparently many of our politicians do not.
>
> There's no indication that that's the case; however, they probably know
(as some
> posters in this thread apparently do not) that the phrase "inalienable
rights" does
> not occur in any U.S. legal document that guarantees those rights to us.

I believe they are talking about basis of rights, not legal standings.
Hense, yours is a non-sequitur.


> It occurs in
> the Declaration of Independence, which does not have the force of law. To
sum it up,
> it's a pretty word, but not pertinent to this discussion.

Neither does the Preamble to the Constitution, but pols love to refer to the
"General Welfare" (and many call it a clause).

Context, sir.


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Roger wrote:
>
> >>Wrong. The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example,
your
> >>right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.
>
> Nope, it just requires the government not to prohibit you.

Yes, these are "negative" rights.
>
> You've got the freedom of speech, but it doesn't mean you will be heard.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO